Jared, I believe the CPE sections should mention the possibility of specifying alternate strings as one way to handle contention the applicant might take into account. Rubens
Em 20 de dez. de 2024, à(s) 16:06, Jared Erwin via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
Dear IRT Members,
Please find here for your review the draft AGB section for Topic 34: Community Application (Community Priority Evaluation) along with the draft application questions related to community applications:
Draft AGB Section (Google Doc) <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1JEnYgVuRwXR_x8I59hpe8MNLBmjsgOK3hivz-1KZ...> Draft AGB Section (Clean PDF) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/CLEAN_EXT_Topic%2...> Draft AGB Section (PDF w/ Comments re: SubPro Recs) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Topic%2034_Co...> Draft Community related Application Questions (Google Sheet) <https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_WGnCrXJrJininvGksnirC0zdJCWRSZ4XbU-...> Draft Community related Application Questions (PDF) <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/315490346/EXT_Draft%20Commu...>
For your reference, here is also a link to the CPE Guidelines from the 2012 Round:https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/guidelines-27sep13-en.pdf. We have marked in the draft AGB section where we have pulled from these guidelines, where relevant.
This AGB section is a culmination of the last few months of work related to the CPE criteria and incorporates the IRT’s feedback to date. Some highlights of the changes we have made since we last spoke: Added “Longevity” back in as a sub-criterion of Criterion 1: Community Establishment Adjusted the scoring to be more binary, where possible/applicable. As we have discussed, there is a balance to be struck between objectivity and allowing for applicants to have a chance to achieve more points. When there are more “in-between” scoring options, this induces subjectivity into the evaluation. Clarified requirements related to the role of the applicant as either administrator/representative or an “aggregator” Focused on the use of the term “identified community” as opposed to the “community as defined (by the applicant)” Adjusted nexus guidelines to allow for an “alternative name” as opposed to just a “short form or abbreviation” Sought to provide clear guidelines for how the applicant can/should achieve points or provide evidence for a particular criterion.
We expect to continue to discuss the draft AGB section, including the CPE criteria, with the IRT in the new year and we will schedule a meeting to go through the AGB section and the IRT’s feedback for early January. Accordingly, we would kindly request for you to review and provide any input by 8 January 2025.
Thank you and wishing you all happy holidays and a happy new year.
Best Jared
--
Jared Erwin Director, New gTLD Program Global Domains & Strategy Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) jared.erwin@icann.org <mailto:jared.erwin@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.